A growing body of evidence is illustrating the fact that the so-called science on vaccines leaves much to be desired. Studies on the safety and efficacy of vaccines are burdened by an array of methodological flaws, selection bias and more. But in the absence of rock-solid evidence, the vaccine industry has grown to rely on bluster and propaganda to push their agenda. Indeed, vaccines are often granted approval without sound science to support safety and efficacy — in fact, that has become the “rule” rather than the exception, according to Dr. Majeta Cernic.
The simple fact that federal agencies charged with reviewing, approving and regulating vaccines have completely dropped the ball by relying on data provided to them by vaccine manufacturers is more than enough reason to call the validity of most vaccine studies into question. And as Dr. Cernic explains, that’s just the tip of the iceberg: Vaccine science is heavily flawed, and it appears to be that way by design.
Raising questions about the validity of vaccine science
As Vaccines.gov admits, the FDA relies on data provided to them by vaccine manufacturers. This holds true during the approval process, as well as after. Even after a vaccine is approved, it is up to the manufacturer to test the product for safety; the FDA simply reviews the data that is provided to them. Any sane person can see that this system, in and of itself, is inherently flawed. Leaving the industry to essentially police itself and trusting profit-driven companies to provide accurate, honest data is utterly foolish and it sets the stage for all kinds of fraud. Perhaps that’s why some critics are now saying that it appears vaccine studies are so heavily flawed, it appears to be intentional.
As Dr. Cernic reports, experts have long noted the potential for scientific studies to be manipulated. Mistakes, distortions and bias abound in science — but it only becomes dangerous when these “mistakes” are intentional, and paraded around as “proof.”
In the case of vaccine science, it seems that the potential to manipulate is strong. As a recent study of the flu shot discovered, selection bias plays a substantial role in how “effective” the vaccine appears to be in elderly people. The study authors confirmed that patients who are more likely to die are less likely to get vaccinated. This creates the appearance that getting a flu shot reduces mortality risk, but due to confounding factors, this “efficacy” is nothing more than an illusion.
“Our study confirms that selection bias greatly confounds the analysis of observational studies of influenza vaccine effectiveness in elderly patients,” the team stated.
Research has also shown that the risks of vaccines are intentionally being downplayed.
The studies are flawed
As Dr. Cernic notes, vaccine studies are often so heavily flawed, they’re “barely fit for a college assignment,” and it’s increasingly obvious these flaws are intentional. Whether it be selection bias, a lack of placebo-controlled trials, or simply data omission, there is no shortage of ways for the savvy scientist to short-change a study and produce a specific outcome.
Moreover, vaccine science has failed to address a number of substantial concerns. For example, the safety of simultaneous vaccination compared to placebo has not been studied, nor has the safety of mixing of vaccine adjuvants.
In addition to flawed methodology and a lack of safety data, vaccine studies also tend to be riddled with conflicts of interest. There are many issues within the world of vaccines, and the absence of meaningful science on the safety and efficacy is certainly one of them.
Written by: Vicki Batts